FATHER INVOLVEMENT AND LONG-TERM YOUNG ADULT

OUTCOMES: THE DIFFERENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF

DIVORCE AND GENDER

FAMILY
Finley
and
COURT
Schwartz/FATHER
REVIEW
INVOLVEMENT
AND YOUNG ADULT OUTCOMES
Blackwell
Malden,
Family
FCRE

1531-2445
Original
XXX
Association
Court
Articles
USA
Publishing
Review
of Family
Incand Conciliation
Courts, 2007

Gordon E. Finley
Seth J. Schwartz

The present study investigated the relationship between retrospectively reported father involvement and current
reports of psychosocial outcomes in an ethnically diverse sample of 1,989 young adults. Outcomes included
subjective well-being, which has been traditionally used as an outcome of divorce, and desires for more or less
father involvement, which have only recently been conceptualized as an outcome of divorce. The present results
indicate that reported father involvement was related to subjective well-being primarily in children from intact
families, whereas it was related to desired father involvement primarily in children from divorced families.
Among participants from divorced families, young women were more likely than young men to desire more
expressive father involvement than they received. Implications for family court practices are discussed.
Keywords:

fathers; divorce; subjective well-being; distress; outcomes; custody

Divorce has become increasingly prevalent worldwide during the past half century. It
currently is estimated that nearly 50% of first marriages in the United States will end in
divorce and that 25% to 50% of American children will experience parental marital dissolution before they reach the age of 18 (Hetherington & Stanley-Hagan, 1997). For children,
the effects of divorce may range from short-term emotional and behavioral difficulties
(Malone et al., 2004) to compromised adult relationship quality (Riggio, 2004) and decreased
socioeconomic status (Amato & Keith, 1991). In approximately 85% of divorces, primary
physical custody is awarded to the mother (Hetherington & Stanley-Hagan, 1999). Such
arrangements relegate the father to the role of visiting parent, and they have the potential
to marginalize and potentially sever the fatherchild relationship (Fabricius & Braver, 2003;
Finley, 2003; Schwartz & Finley, 2005a).
A substantial amount of literature now exists on the effects and outcomes of divorce for
children (for reviews, see Amato & Booth, 1997/2000; Braver & Cookston, 2003) and is
more extensive than can be summarized in an empirical paper. Studied outcomes range
from behavior problems and school adjustment shortly after divorce (e.g., Malone et al.,
2004; Stewart, 2003) to intimacy issues in adulthood (e.g., Conway, Christensen, & Herlihy,
2003; Riggio, 2004). Psychological well-being and distress are among the most commonly
examined outcomes among children of divorce (e.g., Gilman, Kawachi, Fitzmaurice, &
Buka, 2003; Wood, Repetti, & Roesch, 2004).

Correspondence: finley@fiu.edu or SSchwartz@med.miami.edu.

We thank Angela Rodriguez, Christie Khawand, Marya Labrador, and Marisol Blanco for collecting, entering,
and cross-checking the data. We also thank Ronald Mullis and Alan Waterman for their help with off-site data
collection.
FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 45 No. 4, October 2007 573587
2007 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

574 FAMILY COURT REVIEW

In the present study, we focus on two specific outcomes: indices of current subjective
well-being and retrospective reports of desired father involvement. We do so for two reasons. First, and most critically, recent research (e.g., Vazsonyi, 2004; Williams & Kelly,
2005) has found that paternal involvement and the fatherchild relationship significantly
predict child and adolescent adjustment above and beyond the effects of the corresponding
maternal processes. Fathers clearly are important in the lives of their children and in their
childrens long-term life outcomes.
Second, individuals from divorced families generally have been found to desire more
involvement from their fathers than they had received (Fabricius, 2003; Fabricius & Hall,
2000; Schwartz & Finley, 2005a). These desired fathering indices may well tap into
missed opportunities or emotional longing for a fatherchild relationship and perhaps
into a subtle index of divorce-related distress (Laumann-Billings & Emery, 2000). LaumannBillings and Emery argue that young adults from divorced families, most of whom are
otherwise assumed to function well and not to exhibit overt signs of psychopathology,
may nonetheless express considerable regret about not having spent enough time with their
fathers following the divorce. As Wallerstein (2005) notes, no amount of success in
adulthood can . . . erase the memory of the pain and confusion of the divided world of the
child of divorce (p. xx). Indeed, Marquardt (2005), in a national survey of young adults
from intact and divorced families, found that 61% of young adults from divorced families,
compared with 38% of participants from intact families, agreed with the statement I often
missed my father (Finley, 2006). Desired father involvement, especially when it is measured relative to the amount of involvement that the individual actually received, may serve
as a critical, and perhaps unique, outcome of divorce (cf. Fabricius & Hall, 2000). Indeed,
desired father involvement is directly salient to the effects of divorce on the fatherchild
relationship (cf. Kelly & Emery, 2003; Laumann-Billings & Emery, 2000). Thus, one
objective of this study was to replicate and extend previous research suggesting that
missed opportunities and emotional longing for fathering represent a unique outcome of
divorce.
When desired father involvement is measured relative to the level of involvement
reported, three levels of desired fathering can be created: (a) individuals desiring more
involvement than they had received, (b) individuals desiring less involvement than they had
received, and (c) individuals characterizing the degree of involvement received as just
right. Given the findings reviewed above, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that
children of divorce would be overrepresented among individuals desiring more father
involvement than they had received and would be underrepresented among the other two
categories.
Given the focus on young adults sense of missed opportunities and emotional longing
for relationships with their fathers, the present study used a retrospective design where
young adults were asked to reflect back on their childhood and adolescence and to characterize the amount of father involvement that they would have wanted relative to the amount
of involvement they had received. Such research is important, given that family court scholars have recognized the need for custody and access decisions to be rendered based on
research of childrens wants, needs, functioning, and relationships with parents (Kelly &
Lamb, 2000). Mothers and fathers often have their own agendas and best interests in mind
when making custody requests, and judges may be influenced by their own ideologies and
viewpoints when making decisions.
Indeed, although negotiating in the shadow of the law, where divorcing parents are
assumed to negotiate their own custody arrangements, is an accepted practice in family law,

Finley and Schwartz/FATHER INVOLVEMENT AND YOUNG ADULT OUTCOMES 575

there are at least three troubling trends associated with this practice. First, in their groundbreaking Stanford Divorce Study, Maccoby and Mnookin (1992) found that in two thirds
of cases where the father disagreed with the mothers request for sole custody, the father
requesting joint custody was overruled by the judge and the mother was awarded sole custody. Second, as Thompson (1994) notes, fathers who must negotiate with their wives over
custody issues realize that, if their dispute comes to court, their chances of achieving a more
generous custody settlement are remote at best (p. 217). Third, Maccoby and Mnookin
(1992) found that, even when mothers and fathers agreed on joint custody or on sole paternal custody, judges overruled these agreements in one-quarter of such cases. What was lost
in all of these scenarios was the childs own best interests.
Retrospective reports are often used to measure reported and desired father involvement
in young adults (e.g., Braver, Ellman, & Fabricius, 2003; Fabricius & Hall, 2000; LaumannBillings & Emery, 2000) and represent a unique way of assessing childrens views of their
own best interests from a mature perspective (Warshak, 2003). Young adults may provide
a uniquely valuable perspective because they tend to adopt a more mature viewpoint on
their families of origin (Arnett, 1998). Although it is possible to obtain reports of current
levels of desired father involvement from minors, minors from divorced families still may
be involved in the family court system and legally are under the control or influence of one
or both parents. Minors, especially young and preadolescent children, may not possess the
perspective-taking skills necessary to understand what is in their best interest (cf. Kegan,
1982). Once individuals have reached the age of majority, however, they are legally adults
and thus may be freer to speak their conscience. Furthermore, young adults are likely to
possess the cognitive, psychosocial, and emotional maturity necessary to reflect back on
their postdivorce arrangements and to evaluate the extent to which these arrangements provided them with the paternal nurturance and involvement that they desired or needed.
Although these retrospective reports cannot influence the custody decisions enacted years
earlier for the person providing the retrospective report, they can provide valuable information regarding the effects of the divorce process on children.
If, as hypothesized, desires for more father involvement represent an outcome of divorce,
they should be more strongly and negatively related to reported father involvement for individuals from divorced families than for those from intact families. Such a finding would
have important implications for custody and access decisions, given that the potential for
missed opportunities and emotional longing for a relationship with ones father may be
critical to consider when evaluating who should determine what is in the childs best interests
(Fabricius, 2003; Fabricius & Hall, 2000; Finley, 2002).
There is evidence that outcomes of divorce may vary by gender. For example, Strksen,
Rysamb, Moum, and Tambs (2005) found that divorce was associated only with school
problems for boys, whereas divorce was associated with school problems, depression, anxiety,
and psychosocial well-being for girls. Malone et al. (2004) found that behavior problems
were more prevalent in boys than girls from divorced families. Moreover, young women
from divorced families may be especially adversely affected in terms of intrapersonal/
emotional consequences of divorce (Kilmann, Carranza, & Vendemia, 2006). Clearly, more
research on gender differences in long-term outcomes of divorce for children is warranted.
FRAMEWORK AND PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT STUDY

In our program of research, we have incorporated theoretical perspectives, empirical

findings, and recommendations advanced by two sets of father involvement scholars. First,

576

FAMILY COURT REVIEW

our use of paternal nurturance as an index of fatherchild relationship quality is based on

Rohners theoretical and empirical work on paternal acceptance-rejection (e.g., Khaleque
& Rohner, 2002; Rohner & Veneziano, 2001). Second, following suggestions offered by
Hawkins and Palkovitz (1999), we assess both reported and desired father involvement in
20 different life domains. We assess the young adult childs reports both to the extent of
involvement received in each domain and of the extent to which she or he would have
wanted more or less involvement from her or his father. This allows us to tap into both the
young adults reported level of involvement and missed opportunities and emotional
longing for a relationship with her or his father.
In sum, the purposes of the present study was (a) to provide additional validation for
desired father involvement as an outcome of divorce and (b) to examine the relationships
of paternal nurturance and involvement in childhood and adolescence to two quite different
sets of outcome measures. The relationships between fathering and outcome variables were
examined separately for intact versus divorced families and by gender. The two divorce outcomes were subjective well-being (Sheldon et al., 2004), the most commonly investigated
outcome of divorce, and desired father involvementwhich may tap into more subtle consequences of divorce (e.g., Fabricius & Hall, 2000; Laumann-Billings & Emery, 2000;
Marquardt, 2005).
We hypothesized that young adults retrospective reports of father involvement would be
positively related to subjective well-being. We also hypothesized that, for participants
desiring more father involvement than they had received, reported and desired father
involvement would be negatively related (i.e., individuals whose fathers were less involved
would desire greater levels of additional involvement). We did not advance specific hypotheses regarding differences in the relationship of reported father involvement to subjective
well-being in intact versus divorced families. Some studies have found that this relationship
is stronger in intact families (Riggio, 2004), whereas other studies have found it to be
stronger in divorced families (Guttmann & Rosenberg, 2003). We did hypothesize,
however, that the relationship of reported and desired father involvement would be
strongest in divorced families. Based on prior research (e.g., Kilmann et al., 2006; Strksen
et al., 2005), we further hypothesized that all of these relationships would be stronger for
women than for men.

METHOD
PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURES

The sample for this study is drawn from a larger study of father involvement and
nurturance (Finley & Schwartz, 2004). The present sample consists of 1,989 young adult
university students (69% female; mean age of 20.6 years) and represents 84.5% of the total
sample collected. The current sample consists of participants from intact or divorced
families who considered their biological father as the primary father figure in their lives.
Of the total sample (N = 2,353) from the larger study, 364 participants were excluded from
the present analyses because: they identified a nonbiological father as their primary father
figure (56%), they did not specify their family form (26%), they indicated family forms
other than intact or divorced (16%), or they indicated that their parents were never married
(2%). Participants completed the measures in class. Administration time ranged from 10 to
20 minutes.

Finley and Schwartz/FATHER INVOLVEMENT AND YOUNG ADULT OUTCOMES 577

In terms of family form, 75% of participants were from intact families, and 25% were
from divorced families. The sample was ethnically diverse (24% non-Hispanic White, 10%
non-Hispanic Black, 56% Hispanic, 7% Asian, 4% mixed). The majority of participants
(67%) were U.S. born, whereas the majority of fathers (72%) were born abroad. All university grade levels were represented: 46% freshmen, 18% sophomores, 16% juniors, 14%
seniors, and 6% graduate or special students. The majority of fathers (86%) had attained at
least a high school degree, with 21% having attained college degrees and 24% having
attained graduate or professional degrees. Eighteen percent of participants reported annual
family incomes below $30,000, 34% between $30,000 and $50,000, 35% between $50,000
and $100,000, and 13% above $100,000.
Participants were recruited from undergraduate classes in which the instructor agreed
to allow research assistants to administer the measures in class. Although participation
was completely voluntary, we know of fewer than five students who refused to complete
the measures. Classes in a number of academic disciplines were surveyed, including
psychology, family studies, communications, and freshman English. The majority of
participants (88%) were from a large public university with a largely Hispanic student body.
To increase the numbers of non-Hispanics in the sample, additional data were gathered
at two other universities with primarily non-Hispanic White student populations. The freshman English courses that we surveyed were required for all first-semester freshmen, suggesting that the sample was representative of the university from which the majority of data were
gathered.
Although our sample is not representative of the current U.S. population because of the
overrepresentation of immigrants and minorities, the considerable representation of minorities and immigrant families in our sample is consistent both with projected increases in the
representation of immigrants and minorities in the United States (Day, 1996; Larsen, 2004)
and with the overrepresentation of non-European countries among sources of recent immigrants (Schmidley & Deardorff, 2001). The considerable representation of Hispanics in our
sample is consistent not only with the demographics of Miami (Stepick & Stepick, 2002),
where the vast majority of data were collected, but also with (a) the overrepresentation of
Hispanics among the foreign-born population (Ramirez & de la Cruz, 2003) and (b) the
massive growth of the U.S. Hispanic population (Day, 1996). Consistency between the
present findings and those from prior research with predominantly non-Hispanic White
samples would suggest that the relationship between father involvement and young adult
outcomes (subjective well-being and desired father involvement) is consistent across variations in ethnicity and nativity.
MEASURES

Demographics. We assessed age, gender, fathers educational level, family income, year
in school, family form, and participants and fathers nativity. Participants whose parents
were permanently separated (n = 2) were classified as divorced.
Nurturant Fathering. The Nurturant Fathering Scale (Finley & Schwartz, 2004) consists of nine items, rated on a five-point scale, which participants use to characterize
their relationship with their fathers. Participants respond to each item using this
five-point rating scale. The anchors for the scale vary as a function of item content.
Cronbachs alpha in the current sample was .94. A sample item from this scale is, When
you needed your fathers support, was he there for you? (Finley & Schwartz, 2004,
p. 160).

578 FAMILY COURT REVIEW

Reported and Desired Father Involvement. The Father Involvement Scale (Finley &
Schwartz, 2004) lists 20 domains of father involvement, selected from the review and
critique by Hawkins and Palkovitz (1999). For each fathering domain, participants are
asked to indicate: (a) how involved their fathers were in their lives on a scale of 1 (not at
all involved) to 5 (very involved) and (b) how involved they wanted their fathers to have
been, relative to the level of involvement reported, on a scale of 1 (much less involved)
to 5 (much more involved). A sample item from this scale reads, _____ developing
competence _____ (Finley & Schwartz, 2004, p. 162), where the participant is instructed
to indicate reported involvement on the left side and desired involvement on the right.
The reported and desired fathering response scales are qualitatively different from one
another. On the linear response scale, used for reported father involvement, a rating of 1
represents the lowest degree of involvement and a rating of 5 represents the highest degree
of involvement. However, on the curvilinear response scale, used for desired father involvement, a rating of 3 (it was just right) represents the greatest degree of satisfaction with the
reported level of involvement. Ratings of 1 (much less involved) or 5 (much more involved)
both represent dissatisfaction with the fathers involvement. In our analyses, we therefore
separated the desired father involvement into its component partssatisfied, desired more,
and desired less.
It is noteworthy that nurturant fathering and the three reported fathering scales were
all intercorrelated at .80 or above, as were the two desired father involvement scales.
These intercorrelations suggest that the various scales are measuring two underlying
constructsreported and desired father involvement. However, our previous research has
provided some evidence for discriminant validity among the scales within each construct.
Specifically, we have found that instrumental fathering functions are more heavily
endorsed than are expressive fathering functions (Finley & Schwartz, 2006) and that instrumental fathering functions are most strongly impacted by divorce (Schwartz & Finley,
2005b).
Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, Finley and Schwartz (2004) empirically extracted three reported involvement scales and two desired involvement scales.
Reported involvement scales include expressive involvement (caregiving, companionship,
sharing activities, emotional development, social development, spiritual development,
physical development, and leisure; = .93); instrumental involvement (discipline, protecting, providing income, monitoring schoolwork, moral development, developing responsibility, career development, and developing independence; = .91); and mentoring/
advising involvement, which represents the empirical overlap between expressive and
instrumental involvement (intellectual development, developing competence, mentoring,
and giving advice; = .90). The same factor structure emerged for reported and desired
fathering, except that no desired involvement items loaded on both the expressive and
instrumental factors (Finley & Schwartz, 2004). Desired involvement scales therefore
included expressive (10 items, = .93) and instrumental (10 items, = .92) factors. In the
desired involvement factor analysis, mentoring and intellectual development patterned
on the expressive factor, and advising and developing competence patterned on the instrumental factor.
Young Adult Subjective Well-Being. A three-item scale assessing self-esteem, life satisfaction, and future expectations was used to measure subjective well-being (cf. Sheldon et al.,
2004). Participants responded to each of these items using a five-point Likert scale with
1 (very low) and 5 (very high) as the anchor points. Cronbachs alpha for scores on this
scale was .75.

Finley and Schwartz/FATHER INVOLVEMENT AND YOUNG ADULT OUTCOMES 579

RESULTS
VALIDATION OF DESIRED FATHERING AS AN OUTCOME OF DIVORCE

Our prior research has shown that participants from divorced families desired more
additional father involvement than did those from intact families (Schwartz & Finley,
2005a). However, in that analysis we did not separate the desired scale into its three parts:
satisfied, desired less, and desired more. Further, we have not previously examined the
extent to which gender moderates the magnitude or direction of family form differences in
desired fathering. We therefore conducted chi-square analyses among desired fathering category, gender, and family form. We conducted these analyses separately for expressive and
instrumental desired fathering, given that these dimensions of fathering may be differentially affected by divorce (Finley & Schwartz, 2006). Gender and family form were considered as a single categorical variable with four levelsintact male, intact female, divorced
male, and divorced female. For expressive desired fathering, a significant overall effect
emerged, 2(6) = 25.06, p < .001, = .11 (see Table 1). Exploring this result indicated that
participants from intact families were more likely than those from divorced families to
characterize the level of expressive involvement received as just right. Although the overall chi-square test indicated that this difference was not moderated by gender, 2(1) = 0.02,
p = .89, a multinomial regression analysis indicated that women from divorced families
were significantly less likely to characterize the reported level of involvement as just
right, Wald 2 = 10.75, p < .002. This finding suggests a main effect of family form on
satisfaction with the amount of expressive father involvement received, with women overrepresented among participants from divorced families desiring additional involvement.
For instrumental desired fathering, the analysis yielded a significant overall effect, 2(6)
= 64.49, p < .001, = .18. Again, participants from intact families were more likely than
those from divorced families to characterize their reported level of father involvement as
just right, and this effect was not qualified by gender, 2(1) = 0.01, p = .94. Individuals
from divorced families were more likely to desire more involvement than they had received
and were less likely to desire less involvement than they had received. A multinomial
regression analysis indicated that both men, Wald 2 = 9.81, p < .003, and women, Wald
2 = 27.85, p < .001, from divorced families were significantly less likely than participants

Table 1
Desired Fathering Ratings by Family Form
Desired Fathering Category

Family FormGender Pairing

Intact Male

Intact Female

Divorced Male

Divorced Female

Desired Less than Received

Just Right
Desired More than Received

37 (7.9%)
73 (15.6%)
358 (76.5%)

Desired Expressive Fathering

66 (6.7%)
13 (10.7%)
171 (17.3%)
13 (10.7%)
751 (76.0%)
96 (78.7%)

20 (5.5%)
29 (8.0%)
312 (86.4%)

Desired Less than Received

Just Right
Desired More than Received

96 (20.5%)
117 (25.0%)
255 (54.5%)

Desired Instrumental Fathering

234 (23.8%)
21 (17.2%)
235 (23.9%)
16 (13.1%)
515 (52.3%)
85 (69.7%)

50 (13.8%)
43 (11.9%)
269 (74.3%)

580 FAMILY COURT REVIEW

from intact families to characterize their reported level of father involvement as just right.
This pattern suggests that the effects of family form, on the extent to which children of
divorce will manifest emotional longing or missed opportunities for instrumental father
involvement, were equally strong across genders.
THE ROLE OF FAMILY FORM AND GENDER IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
FATHER INVOLVEMENT AND YOUNG ADULT OUTCOMES

To test the hypothesis that the relationships between father involvement and young adult
outcomes would be moderated by family form and gender, correlations were computed
between each of the reported fathering variables (nurturant fathering, expressive involvement, instrumental involvement, and mentoring/advising involvement) and each outcome
variable. These correlations were then compared between family forms and between genders using the z test for independent correlation coefficients and the q index of effect size
(Cohen, 1988). We used bivariate correlations, rather than multiple regression analyses,
because the fathering scales are intercorrelated at .80 or above. Entering highly intercorrelated predictor variables into multiple regression analyses creates computational problems
(multicolinearity) that threaten the validity and accuracy of results (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).
The relationships between reported fathering and young adult outcomes are reported in
Table 2. Because each block of information in this table contains eight separate numbers,
we outline here how this table is formatted. Within this table, we use the term block to
refer to a set of correlation coefficients and differences involving one fathering variable and
one outcome variable. Each block contains three rows of numbers. In the first row, the correlation coefficient for men from intact families is presented first, the correlation coefficient
for men from divorced families is presented second, and the effect size for the difference
between these correlation coefficients is presented third. The second row presents the corresponding results for women. In the third row, the effect size for the correlation difference
between genders for intact families is presented first, and the corresponding effect size for
divorced families is presented second.
YOUNG ADULT SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING

For both genders, correlations of all four reported fathering indices to young adult subjective well-being were significantly and moderately positive for individuals from intact
families. However, these correlations were nonsignificant and trivial for individuals from
divorced families (see Table 2). Moreover, correlations between young adult subjective
well-being and all four reported fathering indices differed significantly and notably by
family form. None of these correlations differed significantly by gender.
DESIRED FATHER INVOLVEMENT

A considerable number of participants indicated that the level of expressive involvement

(n = 286, 15% of those providing valid data) and/or instrumental involvement (n = 411,
21% of those providing valid data) was just right (i.e., a mean of 3.0 across the ten instrumental or expressive domains) (see Table 1). Individuals characterizing the involvement
received as just right were not included in the correlational analyses for the corresponding desired involvement subscale because, for these individuals, desired involvement is a
constant. For both the expressive and instrumental desired fathering subscales, participants

Table 2
Correlations Between Reported and Desired Fathering, by Desired Fathering Category
Variable

Reported Expressive
Involvement
Intact, Divorced (q)

Young Adult Subjective Well-Being

Male
Female
Gender Difference (qb)

.40***, .07 (.35***)

.36***, .14* (.23***)
.05, .07

.37***, .08 (.31**)

.35***, .15* (.21***)
.02, .07

.36***, .01 (.39***)

.30***, .12* (.19**)
.07, .13

.36***, .04 (.42***)

.30***, .12* (.19*)
.07, .16

Desired Expressive Involvement

Desired Less than Received
Male
Female
Gender Difference (qb)

.55***, .47* (.11)

.39***, .75*** (.56***)
.21, .46

.53***, .53** (.00)

.30***, .77*** (.71***)
.28*, .43

.52***, .51** (.01)

.35***, .75*** (.61***)
.21, .41

.58***, .57** (.01)

.29***, .76*** (.70***)
.36**, .35

.21***, .55*** (.41***)

.31***, .64*** (.44***)
.11, .14

.13*, .55*** (.49***)

.27***, .61*** (.43***)
.15*, .09

.14**, .55*** (.48***)

.19***, .60*** (.50***)
.05, .07

.20***, .56*** (.43***)

.25***, .60*** (.44***)
.05, .06

Desired More than Received

Male
Female
Gender Difference (q)
Desired Instrumental Involvement
Desired Less than Received
Male
Female
Gender Difference (q)
Desired More than Received
Male
Female
Gender Difference (q)
a

.34**, .65** (.42)

.22**, .72*** (.68***)
.13, .13
.05, .41*** (.49***)
.06, .59*** (.62***)
.11, .24

.24**, .58** (.42)

.15*, .66*** (.64***)
.09, .13
.13*, .42*** (.58***)
.02, .52*** (.60***)
.11, .13

Reported Instrumental
Involvement
Intact, Divorced (q)

.30**, .58** (.35)

.14*, .82*** (1.02***)
.17, .49
.05, .45*** (.62***)
.03, .59*** (.71***)
.08, .19

Reported Mentoring/
Advising Involvement
Intact, Divorced (q)

.32**, .58** (.33)

.14*, .72*** (.77***)
.19, .25
.02, .43*** (.48***)
.01, .55*** (.61***)
.03, .16

Effect size for the difference between correlation coefficients by family form by gender, within family form.
Effect size for the difference between correlation coefficients by family form by family form, within gender.
Note: Individuals reporting that their reported level of father involvement was just right were not included in the analyses presented in this table. Because statistical significance
is a function of both effect size and sample size (Kline, 2004), the significance of a given effect size varies as a function of sample size.

p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

b

Finley and Schwartz/FATHER INVOLVEMENT AND YOUNG ADULT OUTCOMES 581

Nurturant
Fathering
Intact, Divorced (qa)

582

FAMILY COURT REVIEW

with item means between 1.0 and 2.9 were classified as desiring less involvement than they
had received, and individuals with item means between 3.1 and 5.0 were classified as desiring more involvement than they had received.1
Desired Expressive Involvement. Among participants who desired more expressive
involvement than they had received, all correlations between desired expressive involvement and indices of reported involvement were negative. These correlations were all significantly stronger in divorced families than in intact families, and there were no noteworthy
(q .20) gender differences in any of these correlations.
Desired Instrumental Involvement. Among participants who desired more instrumental
father involvement than they had received, correlations between desired instrumental involvement and reported involvement indices were near zero in intact families and significantly
negative in divorced families. These correlations were all significantly stronger in divorced
families than in intact families, and only one gender difference (in the correlation with
nurturant fathering) exceeded an effect size of .20.

DISCUSSION
Perhaps the most striking finding in the present results is that the types of outcomes to
which father involvement is linked in the long-term appear to be strongly determined by
whether the family remains intact or undergoes divorce. In intact families, retrospectively
reported father involvement was positively related to subjective well-being (self-esteem,
life satisfaction, and future expectations) in young adulthood. There was no such relationship for divorced families.
By contrast, in divorced families, the absence of father involvement is linked to greater
long-term desires for father involvement, which have been described as subtle indices of
divorce-related distress (cf. Kelly & Emery, 2003; Laumann-Billings & Emery, 2000). The
present results suggest that father involvement is differentially related to positive and negative outcomes for children of intact versus divorced families. Subjective well-being appears
to serve as an outcome variable primarily in intact families, whereas emotional longing and
missed opportunities appear to serve as outcome variables primarily in divorced families
(Laumann-Billings & Emery, 2000; Marquardt, 2005). Critically, it is possible that, by
focusing only on subjective well-being as an outcome in children of divorce, the negative
impact of divorce on children may be underestimated.
In sum, the present results indicate that, in divorced families, desired father involvement
is powerfully linked to reported levels of father involvement. The vast majority of participants from divorced families desired more father involvement than they had received. As a
result, it appears that divorce leaves many children with unmet desires for paternal involvementdesires that remain salient for many years after the divorce is finalized. This pattern
of results is consistent with what Warshak (2003) has called the collective voice of children and has argued that this should be used more extensively when making custody and
access decisions within the family court system.
Intriguingly, for young adult children of divorce, desired instrumental fathering appears
to represent a more salient outcome than does desired expressive fathering. Specifically, in
the instrumental domain, children of divorce were more likely than those from intact
families to desire more involvement than they had received and less likely to desire less
involvement than they had received. In the expressive domain, the only significant family
form difference was in the proportion of individuals characterizing the level of involvement

Finley and Schwartz/FATHER INVOLVEMENT AND YOUNG ADULT OUTCOMES 583

received as just right. The implications of these findings for physical custody decisions
appear to be twofold: (a) the father must be physically present to carry out the instrumental
aspects of his role and (b) instrumental fathering is most strongly affected by divorce (cf.
Finley & Schwartz, 2006; Schwartz & Finley, 2005b). It seems implausible for instrumental
functions such as discipline, monitoring schoolwork, and protection to be carried out on a
visitation schedule. The fathers frequent physical presence in all aspects of his childs life
appears to be required if he is to fulfill his instrumental role obligations.
The expectation that the effects of divorce would be stronger in young women than in
young men was only partially supported. Among participants from divorced families, significantly more women than men desired more expressive father involvement than they had
received. This suggests that the effects of divorce on missed opportunities or emotional
longing, especially for emotional aspects of fathering, may be more pronounced in females
than in males. There were no gender differences in the relationship of father involvement
to subjective well-being.
The present results suggest that the father-visitation arrangements that often accompany
divorce are not sufficient to provide the fathering, most specifically the instrumental fathering, that children may desire or require (cf. Braver et al., 2003; Fabricius & Hall, 2000).
Thus, our results, in combination with those of others, may have important implications for
decisions regarding childrens best interests (Finley, 2002). These decisions have generally
been attentive to parents perceptions and to short-term outcomes of divorce, but not attentive to the voices of the children of divorce themselves, nor to long-term outcomes. As has
been cogently argued in recent literature (e.g., Fabricius, 2003; Warshak, 2003), childrens
perspectives on their own best interests, particularly in the long term, are critical for
researchers and policy makers. Equitable joint physical custody appears to be the postdivorce arrangement most preferred by children of divorce in the long term (Fabricius,
2003; Fabricius & Hall, 2000). Our results appear to suggest that providing custody
arrangements that increase paternal involvement following divorce will result in decreases
in feelings of missed opportunities and emotional longing in children from divorced
families.
LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The results of the present study must be considered in the context of several limitations.
First, 72% of the fathers rated in the present study were immigrants. Although the ethnic
diversity in the present sample is consistent with the changing demographics of the United
States, the ethnic diversity in the present sample is somewhat specific to the Miami area.
For example, although approximately half of all Hispanics in the sample were Cuban,
national statistics indicate that Cubans represent only about 4% of the U.S. Hispanic population (Ramirez & de la Cruz, 2003). Nonetheless, the present results are consistent with
those reported with predominantly non-Hispanic White samples (Fabricius & Braver, 2003;
Fabricius & Hall, 2000; Laumann-Billings & Emery, 2000).
Second, the use of a university sample may have screened out young adults from lower
socioeconomic and educational brackets or whose parents never were married to one
another. The percentage of participants from divorced or permanently separated families in
the present sample (25%) is lower than is the percentage (50%) reflected in recent national
statistics (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001; National Center for Health
Statistics, 2004). It is possible that some children of divorce may not attend college for
financial, emotional, or other reasons. However, the proportion of participants from

584

FAMILY COURT REVIEW

divorced families in the present sample is identical to that reported by Fabricius and Hall
(2000) in their study of introductory psychology students. It is also is important to note that
many studies conducted with college-student samples have been used to make recommendations regarding family law and divorce policy (e.g., Braver et al., 2003; Fabricius
& Braver, 2003, 2004; Fabricius & Hall, 2000; Laumann-Billings & Emery, 2000).
Moreover, despite the disparity in the representation of children of divorce between our
sample and national statistics, our findings are consistent with Fabricius (2003), who notes
that we have encountered no evidence that college students from divorced families represent a select few who escaped the ill effects of their parents divorces (p. 305). Indeed,
Fabricius and Braver (2004) report that, in their sample of university students from divorced
families, 18% of participants reported not seeing their fathers at all following the divorce,
and 45% reported seeing their fathers less than 15% of the time. Although we did not collect data on visitation schedules, the patterns reported by Fabricius and Braver (2003, 2004)
are strikingly similar to the results obtained in our sample. Similarly, our results are consistent with Marquardt (2005), who reported that, in her nationally representative sample,
nearly two thirds of young adults from divorced families, compared to just over one third
of young adults from intact families, reported having often missed their fathers while growing up (Finley, 2006).
Third, all variables were measured concurrently. Therefore, we cannot discount the possibility that young adults reports of their fathers past involvement may have influenced,
or been influenced by, their reports of subjective well-being, desired father involvement, or
their current relationships with their fathers.
Despite these limitations, however, the present findings have demonstrated that divorce
decreases the impact of fathering on young adults subjective well-being and increases the
impact of father noninvolvement on young adults perceptions of missed opportunities and
emotional longing for relationships with their fathers. Not only does divorce lessen the
fathers positive impact on his childrens lives, but it also exacerbates the negative impacts
of paternal noninvolvement on indices of divorce-related distress.
In conclusion, there appear to be at least two take-home messages from the present
results. First, although the present study differs from prior research (Fabricius, 2003; Fabricius
& Braver, 2003; Fabricius & Hall, 2000; Laumann-Billings & Emery, 2000) in terms of the
sample used (i.e., multicultural versus predominantly non-Hispanic White) and the specific
questions posed to young adult participants (i.e., father involvement ratings versus custody
preferences and regrets about insufficient fatherchild contact), we note a robust replication
of the core finding across all studies reviewedthat most children of divorce wanted more
meaningful contact and a stronger emotional bond with their fathers.
Second, because different outcome measures appear to be associated with father involvement in intact versus divorced families, it may be inappropriate, and indeed may be misleading, to use outcome variables drawn from studies of intact families (e.g., subjective well-being)
to evaluate outcomes in children from divorced families. Although subjective well-being is
of considerable interest to researchers, divorce-related distress, emotional longing, and missed
opportunities may be more appropriate outcome measures to capture the self-identified best
interests of children of divorce (Fabricius, 2003; Laumann-Billings & Emery, 2000).
It is hoped that the present results will contribute to expanding the empirical basis for
both family policy and family legislation. Our findings, in conjunction with the prior studies cited in this report, clearly argue for a change in family policy, family legislation, and
legal practice in the direction of favoring equitable physical custodywhich is what many
young adult children of divorce perceive to have been in their own best interests (Fabricius,

Finley and Schwartz/FATHER INVOLVEMENT AND YOUNG ADULT OUTCOMES 585

2003; Fabricius & Hall, 2000). In our view, the self-reports of young adult children of
divorce regarding their own perceptions of their own best interests should prevail over the
views and beliefs of others, including legislators, judges, lawyers, mothers, and fathers
(Finley, 2002).
NOTE
1. To our knowledge, previous research has not described young adults who desire less father involvement
than they had received. Although this is an interesting and intriguing population, none of the variables in our
data set elucidated the relationships obtained with this group. We are currently conducting a follow-up study,
including mother involvement and nurturance as well as a greater range of outcome variables, to further explore
this important population. We present data for these individuals in Table 2 to encourage others to explore this
population as well.

REFERENCES
Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (2000). A generation at risk: Growing up in an era of family upheaval. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1997).
Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and adult well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 53, 4358.
Arnett, J. J. (1998). Learning to stand alone: The contemporary American transition to adulthood in cultural and
historical context. Human Development, 41, 295315.
Braver, S. L., & Cookston, J. T. (2003). Controversies, clarifications, and consequences of divorces legacy: Introduction to the Special Collection. Family Relations, 52, 314317.
Braver, S. L., Ellman, I. M., & Fabricius, W. V. (2003). Relocation of children after divorce and childrens best
interests: New evidence and legal considerations. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 206219.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001). Births, marriages, divorces, and deaths: Provisional data for
January-December 2000. National Vital Statistics Report, 49(6), 18.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple correlation/regression analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conway, M. B., Christensen, T. M., & Herlihy, B. (2003). Adult children of divorce and intimate relationships: Implications for counseling. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 11, 364373.
Day, J. C. (1996). Population projections of the United States by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 1995 to 2050
(Current Population Report P251130). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Fabricius, W. V. (2003). Listening to children of divorce: New findings that diverge from Wallerstein, Lewis, and
Blakeslee. Family Relations, 52, 385396.
Fabricius, W. V., & Braver, S. L. (2003). Non-child support expenditures on children by nonresidential divorced
fathers: Results of a study. Family Court Review, 41, 321336.
Fabricius, W. V., & Braver, S. L. (2004). Expenditures on children and visitation time: A reply to Garfinkel,
McLanahan, and Wallerstein. Family Court Review, 42, 350362.
Fabricius, W. V., & Hall, J. A. (2000). Young adults perspectives on divorce: Living arrangements. Family and
Conciliation Courts Review, 38, 446461.
Finley, G. E. (2002). The best interest of the child and the eye of the beholder. [Review of the book Abandoned
Children]. Contemporary Psychology, 47, 629631.
Finley, G. E. (2003). Father-child relationships following divorce. In J. R. Miller, R. M. Lerner, L. B. Schiamberg,
& P. M. Anderson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of human ecology (Vol. 1, pp. 291293). Santa Barbara, CA:
ABC-CLIO.
Finley, G. E. (2006). The myth of the good divorce. [Review of the book Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives
of Children of Divorce]. Contemporary Psychology, 51(35), Article 17.
Finley, G. E., & Schwartz, S. J. (2004). The father involvement and nurturant fathering scales: Retrospective
measures for adolescent and adult children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 143164.
Finley, G. E., & Schwartz, S. J. (2006). Parsons and Bales revisited: Young adult childrens characterization of the
fathering role. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7, 4255.

586

FAMILY COURT REVIEW

Gilman, S. E., Kawachi, I., Fitzmaurice, G. M., & Buka, S. L. (2003). Family disruption in childhood and risk of
adult depression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 939946.
Guttmann, J., & Rosenberg, M. (2003). Emotional intimacy and childrens adjustment: A comparison between
single-parent divorced and intact families. Educational Psychology, 23, 457472.
Hawkins, A. J., & Palkovitz, R. (1999). Beyond ticks and clicks: The need for more diverse and broader conceptualizations and measures of father involvement. The Journal of Mens Studies, 8, 1132.
Hetherington, E. M., & Stanley-Hagan, M. M. (1997). The effects of divorce on fathers and their children. In
M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 191211). New York: Wiley.
Hetherington, E. M., & Stanley-Hagan, M. M. (1999). The adjustment of children with divorced parents: A risk
and resiliency perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 40, 129140.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kelly, J. B., & Emery, R. E. (2003). Childrens adjustment following divorce: Risk and resilience perspectives.
Family Relations, 52, 352362.
Kelly, J. B., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access
decisions for young children. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38, 297311.
Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (2002). Reliability of measures assessing the pancultural association between perceived parental acceptance-rejection and psychological adjustment: A meta-analysis of cross-cultural and
intracultural studies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 8799.
Kilmann, P. R., Carranza, L. V., & Vendemia. J. M. C. (2006). Recollections of parent characteristics and attachment patterns for college women of intact vs. non-intact families. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 89102.
Kline, R. B. (2004). Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Larsen, L. J. (2004). The foreign-born population in the United States: 2003 (Current Population Report P20-551).
Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Laumann-Billings, L., & Emery, R. E. (2000). Distress among young adults from divorced families. Journal of
Family Psychology, 14, 671687.
Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1992). Dividing the child: Social and legal dilemmas of custody. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Malone, P. S., Lansford, J. E., Castellino, D. R., Berlin, L. J., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., et al. (2004). Divorce
and child behavior problems: Applying latent change score models to life event data. Structural Equation
Modeling, 11, 401 423.
Marquardt, E. (2005). Between two worlds: The inner lives of children of divorce. New York: Crown.
National Center for Health Statistics. (2004). Unmarried childbearing. Retrieved April 24, 2007, from http://
www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm
Ramirez, R. R., & de la Cruz, G. P. (2003). The Hispanic population in the United States: March 2002 (Current
Population Report P20-545). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Riggio, H. R. (2004). Parental marital conflict and divorce, parent-child relationships, social support, and relationship anxiety in young adulthood. Personal Relationships, 11, 99114.
Rohner, R. P., & Veneziano, R. A. (2001). The importance of father love: History and contemporary evidence.
Review of General Psychology, 5, 382405.
Schmidley, D., & Deardorff, K. (2001). Profile of the foreign-born population in the United States: 2000 (Current
Population Report P23-206). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Schwartz, S. J., & Finley, G. E. (2005a). Fathering in intact and divorced families: Ethnic differences in retrospective reports. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 207215.
Schwartz, S. J., & Finley, G. E. (2005b). Divorce-related variables as predictors of young adults retrospective
fathering reports. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 44(1/2), 145163.
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Ryan, R. M., Chirkov, V., Kim, Y., Wu, C., et al. (2004). Self-concordance and
subjective well-being in four cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 209223.
Stepick, A., & Stepick, C. D. (2002). Power and identity: Miami Cubans. In M. M. Suarez-Orozco & M. Paez
(Eds.), Latinos: Remaking America (pp. 7592). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Stewart, S. D. (2003). Nonresident parenting and adolescent adjustment: The quality of nonresident father-child
interaction. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 217244.
Strksen, I., Rysamb, E., Moum, T., & Tambs, K. (2005). Adolescents with a childhood experience of parental
divorce: A longitudinal study of mental health and adjustment. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 725739.
Thompson, R. A. (1994). The role of the father after divorce. Future of Children, 4(1), 210235.
Vazsonyi, A. T. (2004). Parent-adolescent relations and problem behaviors: Hungary, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United States. Marriage and Family Review, 35(3/4), 161187.

Finley and Schwartz/FATHER INVOLVEMENT AND YOUNG ADULT OUTCOMES 587

Wallerstein, J. (2005). Foreword. In E. Marquardt, Between two worlds: The inner lives of children of divorce
(pp. ixvii). New York: Crown.
Warshak, R. A. (2003). Payoffs and pitfalls of listening to children. Family Relations, 52, 373384.
Williams, S. K., & Kelly, F. D. (2005). Relationships among involvement, attachment, and behavioral problems
in adolescence: Examining fathers influence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 168196.
Wood, J. J., Repetti, R. L., & Roesch, S. C. (2004). Divorce and childrens adjustment problems at home and
school: The role of depressive/withdrawn parenting. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 35, 121142.

Gordon E. Finley received a B.A. in Sociology and Anthropology from Antioch College and a Ph.D. in
Social Relations from Harvard University. Prior to his present position as Professor of Psychology at
Florida International University, he taught at the Universities of British Columbia, Toronto, and California
at Berkeley (as a visitor). He publishes empirical research, family policy articles, op-eds, and letters-tothe-editor. His writings focus on fatherhood, divorce, family law reform, and the status of boys and men
in contemporary society.
Seth J. Schwartz received his Masters degree in Family and Child Sciences from Florida State University
and his doctorate in Developmental Psychology from Florida International University. His research
interests include parental involvement, adolescent and young adult psychosocial development, identity,
and culture and ethnicity.